DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/6/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0009] A punctuation mark is missing at the end of this paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms “Viscopearl”, LIR-30, LIR-50, LIR-310, LIR-390, LIR-410, UC-203, UC-102, LIR-290, LIR-700, LBR-307, LBR-305, LBR-352, L-SBR-820, L-SBR- 841, "TSKGel SuperHZM-M", "BR150B", RSS #3, "Viscopearl Mini", "Nipsil AQ", "Si-75", "SEAST 7HM", "Zinc Oxide, Type 2", "LUNAC S-20", "OZOACE 0355", "NOCRAC GC", "Petrotack 90", "SYLVATRAXX 4150", "Process P200", "LIR-50", "L-SBR-841", "SOXINOL CZ", "NOCCELER DZ-G" , and "Powder Sulfur", which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumino et al (US 20210178814 A1) in view of Watanabe et al (US 20190389995 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Sumino discloses a rubber composition for a tire and a pneumatic tire [0001], comprising, per 100 parts by mass of a solid diene rubber: 3 to 30 parts of a liquid diene rubber and 0.3 to 20 parts by mass of porous cellulose particles having a porosity of 75 to 95% [0008]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Sumino further discloses that the rubber composition may further contain a petroleum resin [0030] at a content of 0.1 to 5 parts by mass [0031], but does not contemplate a terpene-based resin.
In the same field of endeavor, Watanabe (US 20190389995 A1) discloses a tire rubber composition with improved fuel efficiency, wet grip performance, and abrasion resistance [0005], comprising a diene rubber, silica (reinforcing filler), a liquid rubber, and 5 to 20 parts by mass of a terpene resin with respect to 100 parts by mass of the diene rubber [0007].
Watanabe further teaches that dispersion of a terpene resin in a diene rubber results in high wet grip performance, improved rolling resistance, and lowered abrasion resistance [0014 and 0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tire rubber composition of Sumino with the terpene resin disclosed by Watanabe with the expected result of improved wet grip performance, rolling resistance, and abrasion resistance.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sumino and Watanabe discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Sumino further discloses that the solid diene rubber is preferably a blend of natural rubber and another diene rubber, more preferably a blend of natural rubber and butadiene rubber [0014]. By applicant’s own disclosure, isoprene-based rubbers include natural rubber, among others [0011 of the instant specification]. Therefore, Sumino’s teaching of a natural rubber and butadiene rubber blend reads on the claimed isoprene-based rubber and butadiene rubber blend. Sumino particularly discloses a preferred mass ratio of natural rubber (isoprene-based rubber) to butadiene rubber from 30/70 to 80/20 [0014]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sumino and Watanabe discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Sumino discloses that the rubber composition may contain compounding chemicals, such as a process oil (oil) [0039] and teaches embodiments wherein the content of paraffin oil, a process oil, ranges from 10 to 25 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the solid diene rubber (Table 1). The combination of Sumino’s teaching of 10 to 25 parts by mass of an oil (Table 1), Sumino’s disclosure of 3 to 30 parts of a liquid diene rubber [0008], and Watanabe’s disclosure of 5 to 20 parts of a terpene resin [0007] reads on applicant’s limitation of 22 to 45 total parts by mass of an oil, the liquid rubber, and the terpene-based resin. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sumino and Watanabe discloses all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Sumino further discloses that the rubber composition may contain compounding chemicals, such as a process oil (oil) [0039] and teaches embodiments wherein the content of paraffin oil, a process oil, ranges from 10 to 25 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the solid diene rubber (Table 1), as set forth in the above rejection with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sumino and Watanabe discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Sumino further discloses that the porous cellulose particles have a ratio of long diameter/short diameter (major/minor axis) of 1 to 2 [0025].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sumino and Watanabe discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Sumino particularly discloses examples of the liquid diene rubber including isoprene rubber, butadiene rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, and others [0015].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sumino and Watanabe discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Sumino also discloses that the rubber composition can further contain compounding chemicals including a reinforcing filler such as carbon black or silica, a process oil (oil), zinc oxide, stearic acid, a softener (wax), an age resister (antioxidant), a vulcanization accelerator, and a vulcanizing agent (sulfur) [0039]. When carbon black is used as the reinforcing filler, an amount of 10 to 80 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the diene rubber is preferred [0040]. When silica is used as the reinforcing filler, an amount of 10 to 80 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the diene rubber is preferred [0041]. When both carbon black and silica are used, the total amount is preferably from 10 to 120 parts by mass [0041]. The combination of Sumino’s teaching of 10 to 25 parts by mass of an oil (Table 1), Sumino’s disclosure of 3 to 30 parts of a liquid diene rubber [0008], and Watanabe’s disclosure of 5 to 20 parts of a terpene resin [0007] reads on applicant’s limitation of 22 to 45 total parts by mass of an oil, the liquid rubber, and the terpene-based resin, as set forth above with respect to claim 3. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakagawa (JP 2022080380 A, English translation attached) discloses a rubber composition for studless tires comprising a diene-based rubber containing polybutadiene (preferably 30 to 70% by mass of the diene rubber) and natural rubber (preferably 30 to 70% by mass of the diene rubber), a white filler (such as silica) at 30 parts by mass or more, resin particles (preferably an aromatic-modified terpene resin) at 0.5 to 30 parts by mass, and a liquid rubber (such as liquid isoprene rubber, liquid butadiene rubber, liquid styrene butadiene rubber, and others) at 10 parts by mass or more.
Takenaka et al (US 20170313860 A1) discloses a vulcanizable rubber composition for studless tires comprising, based on 100 parts by mass of rubber components, not less than 40 parts by mass of a masterbatch comprising a butadiene rubber and silica, not less than 15 parts b mass of a masterbatch comprising an isoprene rubber and silica, 25 to 120 parts by mass of a filler, 15 to 80 parts by mass of a softening agent (wax), and not less than 0.5 parts by mass of terpene resin; the terpene resin is disclosed as improving the wet performance while maintaining compatibility on ice with abrasion resistance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Savannah G Phillips whose telephone number is (571)270-0822. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571)272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAVANNAH G. PHILLIPS/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights